Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is offering quite a challenge to brilliant minds everywhere: create a condom that men prefer to use over no condom.

On Gates' "Impatient Optimists" website for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a blog post describes how condoms are effective at preventing the spread of HIV and unintended pregnancy, but most people don't want to use them. Why? Mainly because it hinders the sexual experience.

The blog post was written by Papa Salif Sow, a senior program officer in HIV Prevention at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Stephen Ward, a program officer for Discovery & Translational Sciences at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"It may seem obvious, but the success and impact of any public health tool hinges on that tool being used consistently and correctly by those who need it," said the blog post. "Vaccines sitting on shelves don’t prevent disease. New tuberculosis drug regimens won’t help if patients stop taking them halfway through the necessary days. Likewise, the potential value of condoms is limited by inconsistent use."

It mentions that many other HIV preventative and contraceptive methods are in development, such as fast-dissolving vaginal films and combination vaginal rings. However, many of these alternatives are years from hitting store shelves either due to development issues, regulatory approval, etc.

We have a perfectly good solution already available: condoms. But Gates feels it is time to give the condom a much-needed update so that they're used more frequently.

"What if we could develop a condom that would provide all the benefit of our current versions, without the drawbacks?" said the blog post. "Even better, what if we could develop one that was preferred to no condom?"

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is challenging scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. to partake in the Next Generation of Condoms, which is part of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenges Explorations.

Gates' Grand Challenges are always looking for an old idea to redesign and make into a more effective product. For example, last August, Gates awarded prizes to three teams at an event in Seattle, Washington called "Reinvent the Toilet Challenge." Scientists, inventors, designers and students enrolled in the challenge were asked that they create a toilet design that strays from the traditional flush toilet.

If you've got an idea that will encourage "wrapping" it while making men still want to "tap" it, then submit your ideas to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation here.

Your post is nothing but Christophobic hate speech. Take that garbage somewhere else. Had you spent 5 seconds doing a google search, you'd find that the Pope in 2010 clarified the church's position on this. He stated that the church is not against use of condoms for the purpose of disease prevention .

And yet Catholic health care institutions are fighting tooth and nail here in the USA against the reasonable requirement that they provide access to the same heath care/insurance contraceptive treatments as every health care institution. If they are going to proceed with a double-standard, they will be held to account for the least progressive / most socially harmful practice, even if they do pay lip service to more enlightened policies regarding birth control

Catholic institutions are fighting tooth and nail against being forced to violate their faith.

I have no problem with people using condoms or birth control. But they better damn well pay for them. It is also not reasonable to force a business to pay for something it does not want to and that go against its morals. There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs. Forcing someone to spend money, either personally or through their business, is doing exactly that.

The declaration of independence states that all citizens have the unalienable right to life. This means that all citizens have the right to live and consequently a right to basic health care to help keep them alive. You are more than welcome to hold beliefs in an invisible man in the sky so long as it does not interfere with my unalienable right to live.

Providing contraceptives to others does not violate your faith. You aren't forced to take or use the contraceptives so the idea that this violates your faith is ludicrous. Contraceptives can save lives and often times are not even used to prevent pregnancy. My wife has had to take 'the pill' to fight ovarian cysts. If we lived in your dogmatic world that medication wouldn't be covered by our insurance, which we pay for. And for no damn reason at all really.

quote: There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs.

I'm so glad you wrote this because that 'infringing' bit is a two way street. My beliefs are none therefore any law or restriction placed on me for religious reasons is strictly unconstitutional.

If there were an islamic organization prohibiting women from holding positions we wouldn't and shouldn't tolerate it. And we won't tolerate this nonsense either.

The constitution also doesn't mention your right to reading comprehension, which I see you've taken to mean you can't have any.

Since you still aren't following me, when he said we have a right to healthcare, he meant the right to acquire healthcare, not the right to have it provided to us by the government for free. Health care in his example is birth control pills. One could argue that condoms also fall under health care as they can prevent the spread of fatal and debilitating diseases.

I think you've proven we aren't all CREATED equal, as some of us are clearly mouth breathers while others are intelligent enough to comprehend simple thoughts and ideas of those around us.

He didn't say life isn't sacred. And he didn't say people don't deserve to live. He said no one has the right to force another person to "fix them". Fixing someone else requires immense time, energy, and money. If I'm allowed to force someone to perform a task with no benefit to them and only a benefit to me, that person is my slave.

The right to life means that the government doesn't have a right to take your life and it has a duty to protect you from someone else who is trying to take your life, but it is not guaranteeing you won't lose your life. People who say health care is a right ignore the fact that it takes IMMENSE training, time and money to be able to provide health care. You're saying you have a right to someone else's time? You're talking about slavery.

It seems like the message (especially) the left is sending is "respect MY rights, but YOUR rights are forfeit if it makes my life easier."

As a libertarian, this is offensive to me. Your insurance has a right not to cover certain items. Your employer has a right to purchase insurance that doesn't cover certain items. And you have a right to work for a company that purchases insurance that covers the items you want to be covered AND have a right to purchase these items without insurance.

Where are your rights violated in the above scenario? How is your life being endangered?

People who say freedom is a right ignore the fact that it takes IMMENSE training, time and money to be able to provide national defense and policing. You're saying you have a right to someone else's time? You're talking about slavery.

The difference is that the money that pays for national defense and police comes from the taxes of the people they are contracted to defend AND they are paid for their time while training. THEN we pay them to train in something else later :)

Well, that's not 100% true. The taxes come from HALF the people. The other half get a free ride, which is the biggest problem with national health care. The people who can't afford health care are also the people with the worst health statistically, and they keep popping out chillens because there is no financial incentive not to and we haven't made birth control fun! Maybe they should have Flintstones chewable birth control pills?

quote: The declaration of independence states that all citizens have the unalienable right to life.

Then I demand all food products be free. Why do we draw the line at health care exactly? I can go a whole year or more without needing to see a doctor. But I damn sure need to eat every day, why should I have to pay for that? I have a RIGHT TO LIFE!

quote: Contraceptives can save lives and often times are not even used to prevent pregnancy.

That's not the issue here. You're using a bunch of emotional hyperbole instead of sticking to the facts. Nobody is against contraceptives here. We just don't think others should have to pay for yours!

quote: If we lived in your dogmatic world that medication wouldn't be covered by our insurance, which we pay for. And for no damn reason at all really.

What? No, that's ridiculous. Are you retarded? Nobody is trying to take away your stupid birth control pills covered by insurance!! What the hell? This is about Obama trying to force the Catholic church health plan to cover them. You obviously don't have insurance through the church soooo - connect the dots here - THIS DOES NOT AFFECT YOU!!

quote: If there were an islamic organization prohibiting women from holding positions we wouldn't and shouldn't tolerate it.

That violates her civil rights as well as is being prejudiced against. That's not even close to being the same thing here. You don't have an "unalienable" right to free condoms and pills lol. Get out of here kid

What the church covers under it's health plan has no bearing on your beliefs either. It's a monetary issue. Wether or not the church offers contraceptives for free, against payment or not at all - this does not prevent you from refusing to use them.

If anything you could see it as a test of your faith. Are you saying you need to have contraceptives banned from the church or otherwise you couldn't resist the temptation of using them? That's a faith question which relates to you, and thus is constitutionally protected. Nobody can prevent you from asking this question or exploring it's options. But it still does not have bearing on wether the church actually offers them or not, it has bearing on you being able to handle the church offering them or not. And you should really talk to your lord about that one.

Anyways that's not really why i wanted to respond. This is why:

quote: Then I demand all food products be free. Why do we draw the line at health care exactly? I can go a whole year or more without needing to see a doctor. But I damn sure need to eat every day, why should I have to pay for that? I have a RIGHT TO LIFE!

That might very well be *The* most sensible thing you've ever said on this entire website. Even if it was in jest....

quote: Providing contraceptives to others does not violate your faith. You aren't forced to take or use the contraceptives so the idea that this violates your faith is ludicrous.

Please tell me where I say I want to stop other people from being able to take contraceptives. I say the EXACT opposite.

If people want to take contraceptives, that is absolutely their business (provided a state doesn't pass a law blocking their sale which a state has the absolute right to do if it so wishes while the federal government does not). What IS my business is me or anyone else being forced to pay for them for someone else. If employers, for ANY reason, don't want to pay for that, the federal government has NO right to force them to do so. Nor does the federal or state government have the right to tell anyone, individual or business, that they must violate the faith and principles on which they operate. That is as blatant a violation of the first amendment as they come.

If your wife needs the pill to fight a disease, fine. Get insurance that covers it. That doesn't make it your right to have it though. It is a product that costs a company money to develop and produce. If you want to take the path that anything needed for life is a right to have, well then I guess you can legally steal food.

quote: My beliefs are none therefore any law or restriction placed on me for religious reasons is strictly unconstitutional.

Completely false. There is no separation of church and state. There is only the constitutional block to the federal government ESTABLISHING a FEDERAL OFFICIAL RELIGION. There is no such constraint on states. States HAD official religions when the constitution was signed. If the founders meant to block that, why would they not have addressed it? There wasn't even the discussion unlike the discussion on slavery.

it's called population control. Making contraceptives available reduces crime rates, reduces homicide rates, reduces poverty rates and reduces the number of people on welfare/government assistance programs, as it essentially is a form of sterilizing the poor. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the truth, plain and simple.

So, all this moral talk, totally irrelevant. No one cares what your moral standings are, since their based on some book that's thousands of years old and outdated by modernity. So, that argument is removed by virtue of science, evolving moral systems and logic.

Next! The cost argument. Fine, it does in fact cost more in the short term to make contraceptives available to the public for free. There is no denying that. However... long term savings after 14-20 years are inconceivable. We saw the largest crime rate drop in the history of the recorded world 16-21 years after Roe VS Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Why you ask? Simple! Those children were not born into a continued cycle of poverty and necessitated crime, and as a result of them not being born into that culture, they and those around them didn't develop into sustenance criminals; crime rate goes down, as does the rate of lethal and non lethal violence, due to the impoverished ideologue of banding together, aka gangs.

What's hysterical about this entire situation is the fact that most people can't see past their own nose, much less 4+ years into the future, let alone 14+. So here we debate things that are really so abhorrently simple, and why? So we can save a few million dollars of taxpayer money that will end up equating to trillions? Yes, that's intelligence defined right there. /sarcasm

Oh, and healthcare isn't a right, but under a capitalist system, a healthy and happy bourgeoisie is a necessity. For being capitalists, you certainly don't understand the backbone of the system you so heavily espouse to be god's gift onto mankind do you? Pity that once the poor are so destitute they die off that no one will be there to clean the toilets of the rich... either that, or it will be the French Revolution 2.0. Either way, when you mix a system based entirely around the concept of pure, unadulterated greed at the expense of basic humanity and compassion for others and a democratic system of voting... you get odd results. The US was founded on a higher moral system than what exists today, and the real tragedy is that while society is to blame as a whole for degrading to the point it has, it's really those who hold such a corrupt and immoral system to such high regard that are to blame for the toxic effect the poison of greed has had on our culture. Shamey shame.

So funny reading your response, you refer to the aborted cysts as children! So funny... I see your irony. You are just a grown up cyst who could potentially commit a heinous crime one day. Should someone take the same liberties with you?

quote: There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs.

Wrong. The exact, relevant part of the First Amendment is

quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Note that is does not, in any way, say that governments can't *infringe* on religion. It does say 1) that the government can't set up a state religion. Virtually every relevant Supreme Court case has taken that to mean that the government cannot promote one religion over another, i.e., if you want to have a stereotypical Christian Nativity Scene in a government building, you can't refuse to have a stature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster there too.

The second part is taken to mean that the government can't keep you, personally, from exercising your personal religious beliefs. Church owned/run insurance organizations are businesses. Those businesses don't inherently have a religion. It has yet to be clearly shown by the courts whether the business owned by a human legally inherits the religion rights of that human. If I believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can I set up a business and require all persons who work for me to be active, dutiful members of my church? What if the seed money to start the business comes from my preaching gigs where I talk about the greatness of the FSM? And if they stop being dutiful members, can I fire them?

Clearly, in the exercise of my religious beliefs, I can choose who is and is not a member of any church I start -- and this has been upheld many times in the courts.

However, in a business that is merely owned or run by a church the law is not quite clear. The Supreme Court has yet to make a clear ruling on this issue. There are federal laws prohibiting job discrimination due to religious beliefs. The courts are not 100% consistent on how these laws pertain to businesses owned by a church. It seems clear, due to these inconsistencies, that a church's rights are different from a those of a business *owned* by a church.

So while the U.S. Constitution cannot promote one religion over another and cannot restrict you, personally, in following your personal religious beliefs... there is no explicit statement or final, definitive, clear ruling from the courts on the "infringing" concept.

quote: Note that is does not, in any way, say that governments can't *infringe* on religion.

Exactly what do you think it means when it says "shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of"? Seems pretty clear to me. It's a well established fact we have freedom of religion FROM the Government.

quote: Church owned/run insurance organizations are businesses.

Wrong. They are non-profit organizations. Businesses make money, they technically don't.

quote: there is no explicit statement or final, definitive, clear ruling from the courts on the "infringing" concept.

Where are you getting this stuff? There is a huge list of precedents of the lower courts and the Supreme Court consistently upholding this. Protecting religious organizations from being infringed upon by the Government.

Religion aside, because it causes people to become irrational bigots for some reason whenever it's discussed, I'm generally against second-guessing and redefining the clear mandates of the Constitution. We must always, in ALL things, seek to interpret it in a way that leads to the least Government oriented solution. And involves it the least in our daily lives. As was the true intention of the Framers, obviously.

This isn't a sporting event where you should cheer when the Government smacks down a group of people you don't like, because you'll be the first one to cry foul when the same happens to you. And there might not be anyone left to listen.

quote: Catholic institutions are fighting tooth and nail against being forced to violate their faith.

Actually no. The health care insurance is part of an employee's salary really even if it is not clearly presented as such. As such, it is technically the employee's money. Are you saying that it would violate their faith if hey could not force their own employees to abid by the employer's belief? This is in fact what we are talking about. Well, then a company requiring all it's female employees to buy and wear veils would be great too?

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, not freedom to impose YOUR religion...

However the state has imposed that Employeers purchase the insurance instead of the Employees.

Why can't we just remove the whole Employeer Based Insurance system and replace it with a system like Car Insurance? Employeers have their rights not infridged, and Employees have much more choice when it comes to Insurance plans.

Catholic institutions should not be able to dictate what is available to individuals.

The constitution does protect against infringing, but it specifies that it is meant to protect the minority from the majority. In this case the institution is the majority and the individual is the minority. Obamacare says nothing about forcing an individual to do something. Have you even read the obamacare bill, or are you just fearmongering from hearsay and the FUD spread by those who oppose Obama, yet fail to come up with a viable alternative.

Calling something "idiocy" and equating it to "mass murder" isn't hate speech? Even when the argument is false, an outright lie, to begin with? You can go back to sleep now, leave this conversation to the adults please.

Stating a belief that religion is extremely stupid is no more hateful than your assertion that his belief is garbage. You disagree and you both feel strongly about your opinions. Fine.

I also think the mass murder argument was a stretch, but you didn't even attempt to debate that claim.

And his original argument wasn't a false, outright lie to begin with. In 2009, the Pope said, the AIDS crisis "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." And in 2010 he clarified his position to "allow" condom use when it's the "first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality." So, you can use a condom only if it's a gateway to Christianity, where you'll stop the behavior that allowed acceptable condom use because you'll no longer be a sinner. And then you still won't be able to use it for birth control.

Yes and I'm sure millions of people in Africa (which has a vast majority of Muslims) said to themselves "well you heard the Pope, time to start spreading AIDS. Put down the condoms!!!"

Seriously are you people hearing yourselves?? We are each responsible for our own choices we make. There's no boogeyman telling you not to wear a rubber, be serious.

I totally agree the Catholic church has some stupid positions on things, and the Pope's have said stupid things. However that hardly excuses people of having personal responsibility! THAT'S why we have things like STD's and the like. Stop shifting blame.

How do you use a condom for disease prevention, but not for pregnancy prevention? If you prevent disease transmission, you are also preventing pregnancy.

The Vatican has waged such a campaign against condom use that any Catholic without internet access (most of them) would believe that it is against church law to use one for any purpose.

This is my primary problem with organized religion. The Catholic church is very hard to distinguish from a cult and it doesn't promote a relationship with God. Christ tore the veil. There is no barrier between us and God. We don't need an intermediary (aside from Christ), and we certainly don't need a hierarchy of them. If one needs to determine if using a condom is a sin, they simply need to read the Bible and ask God, not some dude with a fancy hat. Its this lack of relationship with God that is the problem and its EXACTLY what the Catholic church promotes.

No, he wasn't. His opener, "the idiocy of religion" is an insult to the billions of people of faith the world over. It's hate speech, pure and simple, no matter how you slice it.

If someone started a sentence with "the idiocy of the Jews". Or "the idiocy of black people". Or "the idiocy of gays" it would immediately be branded as hate speech. But because bashing Christians and Catholics is "cool", everyone jumps to his defense? Got it.

I'm not catholic... but it does come across as hateful. Religion has been debated for thousands of years and won't be settled on dailytech :-). Opinions CAN be different without being offensive though.

Religion is not faith. Religion is rules, doctrine and dogma. You can have a relationship without religion. That is the whole point of the New Testament! The Pharisees and Sadducees were ALL about religion and Jesus rebuked them as hypocrites. The elder son in the parable of the prodigal son represented the religious leaders (and religious people) of the time and they were strongly condemned.

Organized religion was created at a time when people were EXTREMELY superstitious. They did not understand things that were happening around them and needed a explanation. How else could we get that night is a black sheet drawn over the sky with holes poked in it for stars? Later on, the leaders realized that religion was a powerful force to control people with. Look at all the wonderful things people have done to each other over the years because of religion.I was raised Roman Catholic but pretty much denounced it as who wants to follow a religion based on guilt and suffering. There is no need for religion. There is no brain surgery in the 10 Commandments. Nothing special about Christ's teachings that weren't discovered WAY before he was born. It can be pretty much summed up in "Be excellent to each other". If you choose religion, that's all you. how does it feel to believe in an imaginary friend for grown ups?

quote: Organized religion was created at a time when people were EXTREMELY superstitious.

There is no were , people are still massively superstitious if its not a believe in god is 911 truthers, Birthers, athiests and the list goes on. Only a fool believes we are any less superstitious in this age of "Enlightenment" then we were in the dark ages or any time before that and only a fool dismisses the power of such believes as a net negative the Egyptian civilization exited for thousands of years ruled by God Kings.

The pope flew to Africa in 2009 and told a continent ravaged by AIDS and death (god ordained I might add) that condoms would increase the AIDS issue. Only after international condemnation and ridicule did he alter his stance. Not content with actually helping to solve the problem, however, the pope went ahead and made certain everyone was aware that using condoms for the purpose of contraception was still a sin. Because that isn't confusing or contradictory or anything.

I love that 'word' you used, christophobic. It accurately describes most christians.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISEASE PREVENTION, condoms if used for birth control is still wrong. This is simply a loop hole for Christians/Catholics to use condoms.

This is the major problem with religion, someone... NOT GOD revises it every few years, because people think their policies are old and archaic. I didn't know there was representation on earth for God, because the isn't divinely chosen. Because in my in mind, it is a bunch of old cardinals revising religion to ensure the young people don't think its old and obselete. Not to mention this is the prime reason people ARE moving away from religion, they are beginning the think. That is exactly why Religious activists are trying to teach creationism in classrooms in the US, to prevent people from thinking.

FAITH WILLLLLL CARRY YOU THROUGH, BELIEVE IN MEIn case you can't tell I'm being sarcastic, because FAITH is a load of sh!t

When you sit in a chair, do you first check to make sure it is sound? Unless you're neurotic (which is fine, mind you), you just sit down, strong in your faith that it will hold you.

When you drive your car, you have faith that most of the people on the road around you know how to drive and are paying attention. If you didn't, you'd hardly be able to drive to work.

Faith is real and you have it.

You could say my faith in GOD is a load of crap because you're entitled to your uninformed opinion, but FAITH is not a load of crap.

Interestingly (or not), lack of faith in God is, by default, fanatic faith in oneself. Atheists have faith that their fundamental understanding of the universe is absolutely correct and that faith says that God can't exist.

You're misusing the term "faith" and I hope you're smart enough to realize it.

You can have faith that a chair will hold you...granted that you can see it there, and it appears to have no obvious defects. Because if the chair already had one leg broken off, you'd realize you probably shouldn't try to sit in it. Or...if the chair wasn't there at all...one would presume you'd not try to sit down on something that wasn't there.

Atheists, on the other hand, are fundamentally aware of the fact that their understanding of the universes is *not* absolutely correct, and is subject to revision at any time when new information is found via the scientific method. Atheism categorically does *not* say that "god can't exist." It says that there is no proof that a god or gods does exist.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that God exists. But I can say that prayer works and the principles in the Bible are accurate based on my experience. Based on this, I can infer that God exists in the same way astronomers can tell that planets orbit distant stars. I can see His effect in my life.

How many atheists do you discuss religion with on a weekly basis? Easily 90% of them will state outright and with strong conviction that God is fictitious, not that they have no proof that He exists. They will evangelize their faith without end and ridicule others for their belief.

The truth is that EVERYTHING prior to human existence is speculation. History has shown that science is quite fallible and strongly held beliefs in the scientific community have been turn on their heads through the years.

How can one say "I accept the fact that what I know about the fundamentals of the universe could be wrong." and "What you're saying is absolutely wrong, but I can't prove it." at the same time? ESPECIALLY at a time where we KNOW our models of the universe are fundamentally flawed since they cannot exist in the same reality without funky string theory dances!

quote: How can one say "I accept the fact that what I know about the fundamentals of the universe could be wrong." and "What you're saying is absolutely wrong, but I can't prove it." at the same time?

If I am not mistaken, Atheists aren't saying this. Rather what they're saying is "I accept the fact that what I know about the fundamentals of the universe could be wrong." and "As a result, if you have any evidence which proves that my current understanding about the universe is wrong then I would be glad to see it and change my mind."

quote: Atheists, on the other hand, are fundamentally aware of the fact that their understanding of the universes is *not* absolutely correct, and is subject to revision at any time when new information is found via the scientific method. Atheism categorically does *not* say that "god can't exist." It says that there is no proof that a god or gods does exist.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god(s).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Many (most?) atheists like to use the third definition I've quoted above because it bolsters their numbers. But it mixes up two of the three logically distinct sets so is a poor definition. Belief in a diety (theism), belief that there is no diety (atheism), and uncertainty about a diety (agnosticism).

You can twist the words faith and belief to fit into nearly anything. Generally speaking a faith is a belief in something without evidence. Belief is merely something you accept to be true. With this definition in mind your entire post is pure nonsense.

quote: When you sit in a chair, do you first check to make sure it is sound? Unless you're neurotic (which is fine, mind you), you just sit down, strong in your faith that it will hold you.

No, I hope the chair will hold me. Why would I have faith that it will hold me? I have no evidence to support such a belief.

quote: When you drive your car, you have faith that most of the people on the road around you know how to drive and are paying attention. If you didn't, you'd hardly be able to drive to work.

No, I hope they won't hit me. Again, I have no evidence to believe anyone else on the road even has a drivers license.

quote: Faith is real and you have it.

Faith can only exist by believing in things that cannot be proven. If you adhere to a far more liberal definition faith can include strong beliefs a high level of confidence. With this definition in mind anyone can have 'faith' in anything. The definition is far too broad to be useful.

quote: Interestingly (or not), lack of faith in God is, by default, fanatic faith in oneself. Atheists have faith that their fundamental understanding of the universe is absolutely correct and that faith says that God can't exist.

A lack of faith in something does not constitute an affirmative faith in something else or the opposite. If I don't believe spider man is real that does not mean I have faith that spider man is not real. Why? Because I cannot prove that spider man does not exist. I wouldn't even try because the burden of proof does not rest on me. I believe spider man is not real and if you believe otherwise it is your job to present evidence.